FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Moondizzle Hates Umbrellas said 06/02, 11:29 PM
SS was worried I was going to go play this in only a way I can...but no worries...I'll do this legit. I'll be heading to sleep after this - so we shall continue tomorrow.

I'm going with Mickey Mantle's MVP season of 1956.

Mick hit .353 that season with 52 home runs and 130 RBI. He stole 10 bases, had a gaudy .464 OBP with a Slugging % of .705 - all the while doing so without the Babe hitting around him anywhere. He hit less doubles and triples than Gehrig in his MVP season - but thats generally inconsequential. The disparity however I'll acknowledge.

There is one issue with your argument, however. Gehrig didn't 'beat' out the Babe for the league MVP. Babe Ruth was INELIGIBLE for the MVP award in 1927 because of a clause at the time that prevented players from winning in consecutive seasons. There were also rules that tinkered with voting for more than one player per team. Babe Ruth had arguably the greatest season ever at that time.

There will be differences in our statistics, most notably in the extra base hits category. But overall, Mantle is the last player ever to win the Major League Triple Crown and only 2 players have won the AL Triple Crown since.

Moondizzle Hates Umbrellas said 06/03, 05:32 PM
Well first of all you should quote me properly. I said Ruth had "arguably" the greatest season ever at that time. It's widely perceived that Ruth would have won the award if the rules at the time weren't in place. Secondly, you didn't do much to dispel the notion that Ruth was better. Gehrig beat him in 'every' category except for 4? And they were close in 2? Sounds somewhat even (at best) to me.

Yes..Gehrig had 45 more RBI than Mantle in his MVP season. But to actually ignore the fact that with all of those players in front of him he obviously had THAT many more chances - well - you cant ignore it.

In the 1920's and early 1930's, a good pitcher's E.R.A. was considered under 4.00. At that time, conditions strongly favored hitters. Toward the 1950's and 1960's - new advances in stadiums (dimensions, specifically) changed that, and the return of the sub-2.00 E.R.A was complete (especially when Bob Gibson came along).

So while Gehrig may have had more competition as you read in the stats, he played during a time where offense was at its most prolific in history.

Mantle took the Triple Crown at a time where it was likely more difficult. Depends on your point of view.

Moondizzle Hates Umbrellas said 06/03, 08:19 PM
Ok so lets clarify a couple of things here. As far as ERA is concerned, its a wash. Power hitters were more plentiful in baseball at Gehrig's time from a marketing standpoint, and the leagues' E.R.A.'s were basically even (4.14 in '27, 4.16 in '56). My info came from a couple of sources that showed how baseball had just come out of the dead ball era, and things were different.

As far as ballpark dimensions: it basically hurts your argument more than it helps mine. The fact that Gehrig has a massive amount of doubles more than Mantle is pretty much easy to see with those fence differences you specified. I havent checked if they are in fact accurate. I'll take it as true. You add those extra RBI's (with less homers) in there and you can see what the dimensions brought.

Gehrig may have had to compete with the Babe. But how much better was he because OF the Babe? Not to take anything away, but take Ruth out and his stats wouldnt be the same.

In the end, the best MVP season stats-wise could easily be argued by posting stats. As far as value is concerned, Mantle was simply more valuable to his Yankees. He was THE guy in the lineup. Ruth was THE guy in the 20s, adr to Gehrig.